FilmGuy34567

I have to applaud this film for being a truly original, terrifying, and non-gory horror film. What I like most about it is its build-up and how it sustains suspense to the end instead of petering out like many horror films do. It is consistently scary and suspenseful right up to its shocking finale. It also works as a very surreal film, for not too many details are revealed about "Mr. Boogie", the menace of this film. It is this lack of awareness on our part which keeps us watching and keeps us interesting. My hat goes off to the screenwriter, who keeps things tense all the way through and you have to appreciate the creepy cinematography and use of score as well.

If you took Mendes' "American Beauty", then sucked the contemporary setting and satirical bite out of it, you would get this film he made nearly a decade later. That is not to say that he is overly-repetitious or that this is a bad film by any measure. It is a powerful, well-written movie with two Oscar worthy performances by two stars well-known for their romance on the Titanic. Here they play a couple on the opposite side of the love spectrum, two people growing sick of each other and their plain and boring lives. The drama that results is so realistic and so spastic that it will shock you. The only problem with the movie is its lack of timeliness. This movie would have been revolutionary had it been filmed in the sixties or even in the seventies, but with dozens of suburban angst films proceeding it, "Revolutionary Road", just like its two main characters is bound to get lost in the shuffle.

Woody Allen made an original drama three years ago in "Match Point" and he has made yet another one here. Though it contains the typical Woody views on artistic angst and existential qualms, this movie has a fresh and entirely original feel to it. Partially because of the beautiful Barcelona settings and the attractive faces on screen, it is a visual treat to behold. Not only that, but Allen gives a fine portrait of two good friends who find more than expected on vacation. It certainly is little more than fluff, but it is fine, well-made, well-acted fluff at that. It is certainly the sexiest movie Woody has made yet, even succeeding over "Match Point" three years back.

After directing the critically and commercially successful "Vicky Cristina Bracelona" and the wickedly funny "Whatever Works", Woody Allen comes back with his usual annual picture. This one is not as successful as his previous two, a mixed bag of superstition, unhappy (and generally uninteresting) characters, and broken relationships. It does not have the romantic pleasure of "Vicky" or the acid wit of Larry David to keep it afloat and though it is full of talented faces and some witty plot lines, Brolin's character is the only one who holds our interest. Unfortunately the story does not revolve completely about him, but with his wife and her parents, who I found particularly dull. It has the flavor and composition of a Woody Allen picture, but none of the charms of his previous films.

Scorsese returns to his old form in "Goodfellas" and Mean Streets" with this tense thriller, about two men who are both moles for the police and mafia, respectively and how their lives crisscross. There is a duality to these characters, they are at once opposite and the same, but working on different ends of the spectrum. This is what creates the tension of the film, not to mention the brutal depictions of mob violence and ethnic nationalism. Scorsese embodies a modern crime thriller here, but explores the same themes of his previous films, such as isolation, redemption, and betrayal. It's exciting and morally relevant, a power punch of a thriller boosted by fine performances from DiCaprio and Nicholson especially.

We all knew it was coming, a film about the massacre at Columbine. However, thanks to the brilliance of director Gus Van Sant, we get more than just a exploitation of psychopathic caricatures. We get a meditative view on a typical day of high school gone horribly wrong. The killers are not given all of the attention either, much of the film's insight devoted to other innocent teenagers doing normal teenage things whose lives are affected by the actions of two of their own. What Van Sant does here is much more effective than a simple bloody shoot-out movie, he shows how normal lives can be affected by cruelty and therefore increases the empathy we feel to those who are caught in such devastating events.

Alexander Payne's second feature is a hilarious, over the top, but somehow strangely acute, intimate, and honest film about politics. However it takes place in a high school, but that's certainly not who the satirical jabs are aimed at. The brilliance of Payne's work is how he is able to place a political message into such a bizarre context such as high school. Having Matthew Broderick and Reese Witherspoon as the leads doesn't hinder things either. There is a youthful, kinetic energy about this movie that is refreshingly original, if a bit overplayed at times. Certainly we can see the development of Alexander Payne's satirical intimacy and humorous outtake on human behavior. Perhaps not the best of the director, but a worthwhile stop.

Woody Allen went serious in 2005 with this incredibly serious and tense thriller set in England. That is not to say that Allen has abandoned the themes of his earlier work, about meaning and morality in this world of injustice and chaos. Of course the conclusion of this film is much more pessimistic than that of his others. This is not a whodunit or a crime doesn't pay moral message, this is filmmaking on a more powerful and intensely cynical level. It is a film about injustice and about the fact that crime can pay for people who betray moral values out of greed. Not that it supports this depravity, it states a cold truth, that there is no punishment for the wicked if they manage to fool the people around them. It may not be touchy-feely, but it certainly packs a cold, calculated, but incredibly sexy punch.

The Station Agent- ***1/2 (out of 4): First time writer-director Tom McCarthy brings a masterful mixture of heart-breaking drama and light comedy. It's tough and tender, a sweet and loving look at several lonely and disillusioned people just looking for a little happiness. All three of the lead actors are great: Dinklage as a loner dwarf, Cannavale as the lonely but friendly hot dog vendor, and Clarkson as the troubled artist. McCarthy does not exploit these characters, he treats them as actual people, not characters and we feel the warmth of the filmmaking. Definitely a one of a kind, bulls eye type film. Go watch it.

Fun Size- *1/2 (out of four): There are more laughs and more fun in an episode of "Victorious" than in this farce of a film, which would have fared better had it been released straight to DVD. It is crudely written, the teenage qualms seem entirely artificial and clichéd. There are some funny and even sweet moments in it, but the bad outweighs the good here. It tries to pay homage to older (and better) teen flicks of the '80s, but it falls far short, emerging as little more than a comedy full of gags and stereotypical characters. It might be enjoyable for a small minority of people, but I'm sure most will be quite bored by it. Definitely one to skip.

Sideways- *** (out of 4): Alexander Payne returns from "About Schmidt" with yet another road trip movie with guys much younger but just as full of disappointment and middle-aged angst. Neither of the two lead characters are very likable: Giamatti is a depressed, anxious, and deceptive. Church's character is not only deceptive but blind and often quite impulsive and stupid. Both are not successful and both want relief from the tensions of their lives. They don't find it. In fact, they get more than they bargain for. We somehow still enjoy watching this movie because it is so human in form. It seems to be Payne's talent to find humanity in the angst and despair of life and to make those human failures into something entertaining to watch. We only watch because Payne does not take jabs at his characters, he depicts them for what they are, for better or for worse and soon his road trip film becomes a journey into human nature, human failure, and human redemption. I did enjoy it very much.

The Breakfast Club- **1/2 (out of 4): John Hughes tried a deadly experiment: putting five very different teenagers into a room and seeing what would happen. As feel good as this is, it has its shortcomings and its shortcomings are its undoing. For a filmmaker so concentrated on discovering the truth behind adolescence through realistic depictions, he certainly has a lot of contrived plot lines here. It contrasts itself, the intentions go against the style. Of course that does not mean that it cannot be enjoyed, it is a wonderful picture in an emotional way and anybody who has had the teenage growing pains will definitely relate. From a critical perspective, this is not the best of motion pictures, but from a perspective of a viewer, I would be more than delighted to watch this. It's certainly human.

Midnight in Paris- ***1/2 (out of 4): Though I have always prided Woody Allen on sheer wit and philosophical insight, I pride him here for not only the previous areas, but also the originality of his screenplay. What we have here is a commentary on nostalgia, set in the gorgeous city of Paris, taking us between modern day Paris and the city in the 1920s, when artists and writers such as Salvador Dali, Ernest Hemingway, and Gertrude Stein populated the city. The Allen wit is there of course, but the true value of this film is watching Wilson interacting with these famous icons of the past and learning more about the present in the process. It really makes you feel good and think better after you walk out of this film.

The Descendants- **** (out of 4): Every once in a while there comes a film that is not overly brutal or overly sentimental or overly apathetic towards its characters and subject matter. A film that falls into a category of near perfection in tone and execution. That is the best way I can describe Alexander Payne's "The Descendants", perhaps one of the greatest films of the new decade. It is so perfectly paced and scripted, the moments of emotional intensity and humor are so hypnotically drawn together, the performances are of such fine composure. It is a movie that draws you in, it numbs you from the start and takes you on an emotional journey, bringing you into the heart and soul of this struggling family in paradise. All I can add to what I have said previously is that you need to go see it. It's not a film to miss.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower- *** (out of 4): Is the film based off the popular '90s novel a brilliant or distinctive movie? Not really. Is it an interesting, sweet, engaging film? Absolutely. Of course this film is full of clichés at almost every turn: the introvert finding acceptance and love with a group of counter-cultural oddballs. Yes. It is quite a cliché. However, I found the film's depiction of adolescence and its love for its teenage characters enjoyable and sweet. Lerman may be a bit too handsome and smooth for Charley, but once we get started, we don't care. The movie of course would not be half as good without Ezra Miller and Paul Rudd. Both of these actors make this film worthwhile. Anybody who had trouble with high school will like it. Anybody with a heart worth its weight will connect with it. Despite its clichés. Go watch it.

Catch-22-** (out of 4): All the components of a great film are there: a brilliant novel by Joseph Heller, Buck Henry in charge of writing, Mike Nichols behind the camera, and a cast any director worth his salt would die for. Of course that all looks good on paper, but it never quite comes together. The black humor of the novel comes out rather awkwardly on the screen, the vignettes not coming together the way they do in the book. The film is a hot mess, a smashing together of Heller's novel into slightly funny scenes that have little flow. Arkin is a great actor, but not the right Yossarian. Arkin is too distinctly New Yorker and looks way too old in the role. Of course Henry's writing does nail certain scenes and the cast is fun to watch, but it is never as great as it should be. It would even be a stretch to say that it is even half-good.

Metropolitan-*** (out of 4): Though it can be slightly dull and meandering, there is no denying the originality of Stillman's highly personal slice of upper class life. As intellectual and sophisticated as it is, it manages to avoid pretentiousness and we begin to see true pain and angst in these high-brow people who discuss Karl Marx and Luis Bunuel at their gatherings. However, there are negatives. Clements' character never seemed to click and develop like he should. Though I will say Eigeman and Nichols gave great performances as the intellectuals in the Upper Class NYC. It's definitely an original, definitely a milestone in independent film, and definitely a wonderful little intellectual gem of a screenplay. It may not be for everyone, but it certainly is worthwhile for those who like New York comedies.

Whatever Works- ***1/2 (out of 4): It may not be the most masterful film Woody Allen has ever directed, but I fell head over heels for the New York misanthrope Boris Yellnikoff who gets drawn into the lives of several others struggling for happiness due to his act of kindness toward Melody Celestine, a naïve runaway. It is consistently funny, cute, and honest. Though it may be on the back-burner of Allen's film resume and it may be outdated (since it was written in the early 1970s), it still manages to charm us. I was engaged by the film's transfer from neurotic pessimism to optimism through a series of convoluted events. Of course no one can be as neurotic and pessimistic as Boris or as naïve and giddy as Melody, but the point is not realism here, it's completely philosophical comedy and he does a great job.

Manhattan-**** (out of 4): Woody Allen broke his strictly comic image with 1977's "Annie Hall" and he followed that effort up with this masterpiece, a work of such beautiful cinematography, pitch-perfect writing, and an unforgettable cast. The opening black and white scenes of Manhattan, set to the pitch of "Rhapsody in Blue" by George Gershwin makes NYC come alive like it never has before. Then, we get to the story, with a group of neurotic New Yorkers struggling to keep their emotional lives in tact. Mariel Hemingway is absolutely fantastic above all the others, she breathes pure sensitivity into her part as Woody's teen-aged lover. "Manhattan" was Allen's first effort to capture the spirit of NYC as a whole and its intellectual community. However, this film functions as more than a love note to New York, it also is a highly personal movie about romance, friendship, and intellectual angst.

Welcome to the Dollhouse-***1/2 (out of 4): Junior high can be tough and it is especially tough for little Dawn, who suffers from her abusive classmates, less than satisfactory home life, and her own discomfort with the problems of adolescence. Perhaps one of the most raw and unsentimental coming of age pictures ever made, though the tone is purely original. We are in many ways touched and even heartbroken by the central character and her troubles, but often catch ourselves laughing at the sheer misery and misfortune encountered by her. Half black comic and half drama, but completely insightful: this film is definitely one for the books. It also is the first display of the humorous misery of writer-director's Todd Solondz's imagination.

Hannah and Her Sisters-***1/2 (out of 4)- After starting off with his bizarre, slapstick comedies, Woody Allen reached into dramatic terrain in the late 1970s, while still retaining his comic insight. He clearly displays an empathy and an understanding for family drama, neurosis, and despair in this film. His observations on the Upper Crust of NYC are still fresh and wonderful. Besides that, he gets terrific help from his cast of actors, showcasing Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest at their peak of form. However, you can't forget Mia Farrow as Hannah herself and Allen as the typical suicidal hypochondriac New Yorker with a sense of existential dismay over the world. The film is an expansion of Allen's art, encompassing more than just his character, but expanding to include other characters, separating this movie from his previous classics and broadening his film canvas as an artist.

It's Kind of a Funny Story- *** (out of 4) Everybody's got problems and some people's are bigger than others. 16 year old Craig is one of those with serious problems (or so he thinks), he's stressed out and suicidal. He can't stand the anxiety anymore, so he goes to a mental institution. When he gets there, he immediately regrets it, but in the end, he manages to develop some confidence in himself and even make a few new friends and a love interest. It may not be the most expressive or emotional teen flick you've ever seen, but there is no mistaking this film's beautiful story. Its sympathy for neurotics and crazies makes this special indeed and the message that you just have to grasp life is one of a kind, plus you can't go wrong with Galifinakis as a suicidal oddball with great advice and a swagger all his own.